SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> ‘wimmenz’
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1538840494

Message started by MnSpring on 10/06/18 at 08:41:34

Title: ‘wimmenz’
Post by MnSpring on 10/06/18 at 08:41:34

‘wimmenz’. A word to describe ‘women’.
‘wimmenz’, is a relatively new word, used by some, who would not be considered ‘mainstream’.
I remember when the big argument was about, ‘aren’t’, and whether or not that should be put in Dictionary.

(Their are a whole bunch of words that are the same as below, but will use just one, which seems used the most)
The word ‘Hoe’, in describing a ‘women’. (Not a garden tool)

If said by a white skin male, to a black skin women. It is considered, racist / predgedist.
If said by a black skin male, to a white skin women. It is considered, a non issue.
(because the white skinned woman is afraid of responding, fearing she may be called,racist / predgedist.)
If said by a white skin male, to a white skin women. The Male Gets Slapped !!!!
If said by a black skin male, to a black skin women. It is considered, absolutely normal.

Why is it not, a male saying a derogatory remark to a female, considered just wrong.
Regardless of color of skin of the person saying it, and/or said to ?

Wait Wait, I know, The UL, Fairy Dust Sprinkling Snowflakes,
‘thought’, it was a good idea to give some people, SPECIAL treatment,
because the, UL, Fairy Dust Sprinkling Snowflakes,
‘think’ that is, equality !

Title: Re: ‘wimmenz’
Post by Eegore on 10/06/18 at 09:22:19

Derogatory language and who can use it as a socially acceptable term has been around long before "The UL, Fairy Dust Sprinkling Snowflakes" were born. In Europe the "N" Word is completely normal and not used in the same context, just like the "C" word is commonly used with no issue. Its about geography and social construct.

Was it Snowflakes that made African American culture re-take Ni gger as a culturally accepted term within their own communities back in the 80's?

I find it most interesting that one asks:

"Why is it not, a male saying a derogatory remark to a female, considered just wrong.
Regardless of color of skin of the person saying it, and/or said to ?"

while consistently using derogatory remarks like "Fairy Dust Sprinkling Snowflakes" among others.

Why is it not a forum member saying a derogatory remark to another member considered just wrong?

Title: Re: ‘wimmenz’
Post by T And T Garage on 10/06/18 at 09:57:32

Well Eegore, we all know exactly what kind of person mn is.

He's allowed a lot of leeway.

I guess he's "special".

Bless his heart....

Title: Re: ‘wimmenz’
Post by MnSpring on 10/06/18 at 10:35:24

6D4D4F475A4D280 wrote:

Derogatory language and who can use it as a socially acceptable term has been around long before "The UL, Fairy Dust Sprinkling Snowflakes" were born. In Europe the "N" Word is completely normal and not used in the same context, just like the "C" word is commonly used with no issue. Its about geography and social construct.
Was it Snowflakes that made African American culture re-take Ni gger as a culturally accepted term within their own communities back in the 80's? I find it most interesting that one asks:"Why is it not, a male saying a derogatory remark to a female, considered just wrong.
Regardless of color of skin of the person saying it, and/or said to ?"
while consistently using derogatory remarks like "Fairy Dust Sprinkling Snowflakes" among others. Why is it not a forum member saying a derogatory remark to another member considered just wrong?

LOLOLOL. The post said, Nothing, about, WHEN, words were/were not, derogatory at all.
Recently, (in the, time order of things), Shakespeare used ‘W hore’.
Rather positive Chaucer used (what would be called today) a derogatory word or two. (if you can read Chaucer)
So the first 1/2 of your post, is subject for another discussion as it has nothing to do with this one.

You equate my saying: “Fairy Dust Sprinkling Snowflakes”, as a derogatory remark..
It is not,
it is a accurate description, of people who make,
Fairy Dust Sprinkling Snowflake, decisions.
It is just the same, and as accurate as someone saying,
‘you have green dots on your face’,
when they have, green dots on their face.

“ while consistently using derogatory remarks like “Fairy Dust Sprinkling Snowflakes" among others"
Does frequency count ? How many times has a POTUS been called, numerous names ? How many times does it take ?

“ Why is it not a forum member saying a derogatory remark to another member considered just wrong? “
Apparently, you believe that saying: (because you are implying it with your post)
Idiot, Stupid, Moron, Bat $hit Crazy, Nazi, Fascist, White Supremacist, (and a whole bunch more)
are Not, derogatory remarks.

The point stands, Why is a male saying, ‘hoe’ (now THOT), to a female,
considered differently,
depending upon the color of the male’s skin, and the color of the females skin ?

Title: Re: ‘wimmenz’
Post by Matchless G11 on 10/06/18 at 10:53:03

1E3D0023213A3D34530 wrote:

[quote author=6D4D4F475A4D280 link=1538840494/0#1 date=1538842939] Derogatory language and who can use it as a socially acceptable term has been around long before "The UL, Fairy Dust Sprinkling Snowflakes" were born. In Europe the "N" Word is completely normal and not used in the same context, just like the "C" word is commonly used with no issue. Its about geography and social construct.
Was it Snowflakes that made African American culture re-take Ni gger as a culturally accepted term within their own communities back in the 80's? I find it most interesting that one asks:"Why is it not, a male saying a derogatory remark to a female, considered just wrong.
Regardless of color of skin of the person saying it, and/or said to ?"
while consistently using derogatory remarks like "Fairy Dust Sprinkling Snowflakes" among others. Why is it not a forum member saying a derogatory remark to another member considered just wrong?

Title: Re: ‘wimmenz’
Post by Eegore on 10/07/18 at 15:10:58

Why is a male saying, ‘hoe’ (now THOT), to a female,
considered differently,
depending upon the color of the male’s skin, and the color of the females skin ?

There is a multitude of factors that dictate the social acceptance of words and word usage. There have been multiple studies and papers written on language development and change, many with emphasis on societal norms in slang. There are many references where African Americans still think slang is offensive even if used within their race.

It is typically more acceptable for a friend to call another a jerk than it is for a stranger. This is typically due to knowing the entire nature and intent of the term jerk coming from a friend, and less so from a stranger. "Typically" meaning that it applies to many but not all (as in always) people who have been called a jerk by a friend and also by a stranger. I general people are less upset when a friend gets drunk and breaks a window than when a stranger gets drunk and breaks a window.

As I suspected you would consider your terms of "Snowflake" etc. to be accurate at least by your terms and not derogatory. The same could be said for "Troll" among other terms. This implies a term is only derogatory if it is not accurate.

By that logic calling someone a "N igger" is not derogatory if they are black, and calling someone a "Snowflake" is not derogatory if they are easily offended, and calling someone a "F aggot" is not derogatory if they are a homosexual male.

"Apparently, you believe that saying: (because you are implying it with your post)
Idiot, Stupid, Moron, Bat $hit Crazy, Nazi, Fascist, White Supremacist, (and a whole bunch more)
are Not, derogatory remarks."

Incorrect. I was attempting to ask the same question you asked but replacing "male" and "female" with "forum member" and "another member":

"Why is it not, a male saying a derogatory remark to a female, considered just wrong."

In order to match the sentence structure I did not include all derogatory terms used in this forum but I do mean to include them in the general question being asked without creating a glossary of terms to be referenced as possible inclusion replacement terms within the presented sentence.

Title: Re: ‘wimmenz’
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/07/18 at 15:55:29

This thread is about the lying witches who destroyed lives.

Title: Re: ‘wimmenz’
Post by Eegore on 10/07/18 at 17:15:06

"This thread is about the lying witches who destroyed lives."

I thought it was about why it is acceptable for certain people to use slang terms to describe others, when in turn it is unacceptable for certain people to use the same slang terms. In this case the term "wimmenz" is being used as an example, but not in exclusivity.

For instance MnSpring stated:

"Why is it not, a male saying a derogatory remark to a female, considered just wrong.
Regardless of color of skin of the person saying it, and/or said to ?"

I was under the impression that the question that the thread was about derogatory remarks in general and not exclusive to women who have lied and damaged males in the process.

My reasoning is due to the original post asking the above quoted question and the posing of said question being prefaced by the following:

"If said by a white skin male, to a black skin women. It is considered, racist / predgedist.
If said by a black skin male, to a white skin women. It is considered, a non issue.
(because the white skinned woman is afraid of responding, fearing she may be called,racist / predgedist.)
If said by a white skin male, to a white skin women. The Male Gets Slapped !!!!
If said by a black skin male, to a black skin women. It is considered, absolutely normal."

This series of examples do not present themselves as having exclusivity to females who have lied and damaged males, but they do present a series of hypothetical phrase-based interactions that reinforce the idea that certain slang terms are only acceptable when used in gender and race specific scenarios. Again not exclusive to females that have harmed males by duplicitous action.

Title: Re: ‘wimmenz’
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/07/18 at 17:43:17

Oops, my bad